COMMON  SENSE 

A  GOLDEN  RULE 

No.  2 


ADDRESS  DELIVERED  BY 


»-  *•. 

•  •% 


FRED  KOHLER, 

CHIEF  OF  POLICE 


CLEVELAND,  OHIO 
AT  CONVENTION  OF 

INTERNATIONAL  ASSOCIATION 
OF  CHIEFS  OF  POLICE 


BUFFALO,  NEW  YORK 
June  15-19,  1909. 


cN? 

nJ  o  V 


T\D 


S. 


( 


INTERNATIONAL  ASSOCIATION  OF  CHIEFS  OF  POLICE. 

COMMON  SENSE. 

“  A  Golden  Rule.” 

No.  2. 

(By  Fred  Kohler,  Chief  of  Police,  Cleveland,  Ohio.) 

Mr.  President,  Brother  Chiefs,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen : 

IN  ANSWER  TO  THE  MANY  INQUIRIES  CONCERN¬ 
ING  THE  MOTIVE  FOR  THE  ADOPTION  AND  THE  CON¬ 
DITIONS  RESULTING  FROM  OUR  APPLICATION  OF  THE 
COMMON  SENSE  OR  SO-CALLED  “GOLDEN  RULE  ” 
POLICY  OF  MAKING  AND  NOT  MAKING  ARRESTS  IN 
CLEVELAND,  OHIO. 

In  order  to  make  intelligent  my  answer  to  these  foregoing 
questions,  it  will  be  necessary  for  me  to  repeat  portions  of  the  ad¬ 
dress  delivered  at  the  Convention  of  Chiefs  of  Police,  at  Detroit, 
Mich.,  June  3d,  1908. 

THE  CONCEPTION. 

For  a  great  many  years  in  Cleveland,  practically  always,  cer¬ 
tainly  throughout  the  period  of  my  twenty  years’  service  on  the 
force,  the  police  had  done  as  the  police  do  everywhere  with  drunks 
and  disorderly  persons,  petty  thieves,  bad  boys  and  small  offenders 
generally — we  ran  them  in.  It  was  the  custom  in  Cleveland ;  it  is 
still  the  custom  of  practically  the  whole  police  world,  and  customs 
— ground  as  they  are  into  the  very  fibre  of  men’s  minds — are  hard 
to  break.  But  we  have  broken  the  custom  of  the  world  and  the 
ages  in  Cleveland.  *  *  *  * 

For  many  years  I  had  given  confused  study  and  some  not  very 
enlightening  observation  to  the  numerous  arrests  made  for  minor 
offenses.  I  couldn’t  see  that  these  wholesale  arrests  did  any  good. 

The  number  of  them  did  not  diminish;  it  increased.  And  I  found 
not  only  that  the  arrests  did  not  produce  good  results ;  they  did 
harm.  They  brought  disgrace,  humiliation  and  suffering  to  count¬ 
less  innocent  persons  in  no  way  responsible  for  the  acts  of  a 
thoughtless,  careless,  michievous,  or  even  if  you  will,  a  malicious 
first  offender.  *  *  *  *  /' 

I  found  daily  at  police  stations  relatives  and  friends  in  tears 
seeking  the  release  of  some  prisoner,  who,  when  I  inquired,  proved 
to  be  not  so  very,  very  bad.  In  Police  Court  next  day  I  saw  old 


2 


and  feeble  parents,  weeping  wives  with  crying  babies  in  their  arms, 
and  very  often  other  children  clinging  at  their  sides — all  there  to 
witness  the  degradation  of  those  they  loved.  And  what  was  the 
result?  A  hasty  trial,  and  since  the  offense  was  usually  trivial, 
the  prisoner  was  discharged.  Good !  But  all  that  suffering  was 
in  vain.  Sometimes  it  was  worse  than  vain.  *  *  *  *  Again 

sometimes  the  offender  was  fined.  That  was  a  “result,”  but  who 
paid?  The  weeping  mother  and  children;  they  were  robbed  of  the 
necessities  of  life  and  the  only  gain  was  a  few  paltry  dollars  paid 
into  the  City  Treasury.  Was  there  one  particle  of  real  good  ac¬ 
complished  by  this  process?  Watching  it  all  as  I  did,  day  after  day, 
I  answer  “no,”  and  I  say  now  emphatically,  “no.” 

N^w,  questioning  these  unfortunates,  it  struck  me  that  most  of 
them  did  what  they  did  through  thoughtlessness,  natural  passion, 
or  in  the  spirit  of  frolic  or  mischief.  It  seemed  to  me  that  this 
should  be  understood.  It  didn't  seem  at  first  to  be  the  policeman’s 
duty  to  study  the  cases  and  to  use  discretion.  *  *  *  *  There 

wras  a  misunderstanding  all  around.  And  gentlemen,  misunder¬ 
standing  is  injustice.  *  *  *  * 

Then  I  remembered  that  all  persons  are  not  arrested  who  com¬ 
mit  minor  offenses  and  even  felonies.  Many  escape  detection  or 
are  not  exposed.  Their  escape  did  not  hurt  them  or  society;  it 
was  an  advantage.  *  *  *  * 

Now,  I  finally  concluded,  that  it  was  our  duty  not  to  help 
these  unfortunates  on  their  downward  course,  but  to  save  them. 
It  seemed  to  me  it  was  up  to  the  police  to  learn  to  know  the  differ¬ 
ence  between  a  thief  and  a  mischievous  man  or  boy.  And  why 

not?  Of  all  men,  who  is  so  able  to  judge  whether  an  arrest  is 
necessary  as  the  policeman?  *  *  *  * 

Upon  these  observations  and  thoughts  my  policy  was  formed. 
Firm  in  the  belief  that  some  remedy  was  necessary,  I  decided  to 
go  forward  with  my  Common  Sense  Plan.  I  determined  to  have 
my  policemen  use  their  best  human  instincts.  I  proposed  that 
they  should  exercise  that  discretion  which  the  judges  did  not  al¬ 
ways  exercise. 

As  a  step  then,  in  the  right  direction,  might  not  a  wider  inter¬ 
pretation  be  given  to  an  officer’s  duty,  so  that,  by  his  kindly  efforts 
as  first  and  final  judge  of  first  offenders,  the  stream  that  is  now 
so  steadily  flowing  in  the  direction  of  the  jail  and  penitentiary 
might  be  diverted  into  channels  of  worthy  and  useful  citizenship? 
Of  course  it  might;  and  that  is  my  answer  as  to  the  motive. 

With  all  these  facts  and  data  ever  before  me,  and  recognizing 
the  evil  embodied  therein,  and  the  benefit  that  would  be  derived  in 
a  change  of  policy,  I  personally  met  with  each  division  of  our  de¬ 
partment,  and  in  an  informal  way,  we  considered  just  how  far  this 
policy  should  be  carried.  We  first  realized,  that  to  make  it  a  suc¬ 
cess,  a  kindly  feeling  would  be  essential  to  its  official  administra¬ 
tion.  Then  every  violation  of  the  law  or  ordinance  was  carefully 
gone  over  from  every  point  of  view.  And  finally  we  determined 
that  the  following  considerations  should  govern  our  actions. 

3 


FIRST :  Juveniles  were  never  to  be  placed  in  prison.  They  were 
to  be  taken  home  or  the  parents  sent  for  and  the  child  turned  over 
to  them  for  parental  correction.  SECOND:  The  members  of  the 
force  were  to  use  their  kindly  efforts  in  easing  the  friction  and  ill- 
temper  between  man  and  man,  wherever  and  whenever  it  made 
itself  manifest.  THIRD:  That  the  best  policeman  is  the  one  who 
manages  the  offender  with  the  least  show  or  display  of  authority. 
FOURTH:  That  some  men  fall  through  some  unfortunate  cir¬ 
cumstances  and  are  not  criminal  at  heart,  and  should  be  treated 
accordingly;  in  which  case  the  best  results  might  be  accomplished 
with  a  well  applied  reprimand.  FIFTH :  Officers  should  have 
sufficient  evidence  of  a  competent  character  to  secure  conviction, 
before  even  considering  the  imprisonment  of  a  person  on  any 
charge  whatever.  SIXTH  :  Any  apparent  violators  who  were  not 
known  to  be  of  good  character  and  reputation,  were  to  be  accom¬ 
panied  to  the  precinct  station,  where  the  matter  would  be  carefully 
inquired  into  by  the  officer  in  charge  and  the  proper  action,  as 
specified  by  the  Common  Sense  Policy,  taken. 

On  January  1st,  1908,  the  policy  went  into  effect.  Immediately 
gratifying  results  were  shown,  and  now  after  17  months  of  severe 
test  that  the  policy  has  received  in  this  city,  there  need  be  no 
hesitancy  in  claiming  a  great  improvement  in  the  performance  of 
police  work.  True,  it  was  a  radical  departure  from  time-worn 
methods,  almost  revolutionary,  but  still  in  harmony  with  the  gen¬ 
eral  accepted  theory,  that  the  greatest  aim  of  the  law  was  the  pre¬ 
vention  of  crime,  the  correction  and  reformation — not  the  vindictive 
punishment  of  the  offender. 

Some  daily  papers  (through  a  misunderstanding  of  the  policy) 
attempted  to  lead  the  public  to  believe  that  this  policy  applied  to 
all  violators  of  the  laws,  which  is  a  clear  misrepresentation  of  real 
object  and  intent.  We  have  never  catered  to  crime  or  criminals, 
and  never  will,  and  our  new  policy  of  making  or  not  making  ar¬ 
rests,  never  included  criminals  or  habitual  offenders.  The  many 
technicalities  of  the  laws,  and  from  the  difficulty  formerly  exper¬ 
ienced  in  getting  sufficient  evidence  to  convict,  has  been  almost 
entirely  eliminated  under  this  new  system,  for  the  reason  that  the 
members  of  the  department  had  more  time  to  devote  to  felony 
cases,  and  to  the  prosecution  of  professional  criminals  and  habitual 
offenders. 

Other  publicity  agents,  seeing  that  many  feature  stories  never 
came  to  light,  have  opposed  us.  But  we  have  felt  that  it  was  a 
gain  to  have  saved  so  many  persons  from  the  embarrassment  re¬ 
sulting  from  the  unwise  exploition  of  their  misfortune. 

I  am  a  firm  believer  in  publicity  (the  exposure  of  criminal 
method  and  misrepresentation,  always  excepted),  and  I  believe  that 
the  more  publicity  that  can  be  given  the  police  and  the  methods 
of  Police  Court  procedure  in  the  disposal  of  real  criminals  and 
suspected  thieves,  who  make  their  living  by  swindling  the  public, 
the  Fetter  it  will  be  for  the  community.  I  appreciate  criticism ; 
HONEST  CRITICISM  DOES  GOOD. 


4 


3kim 

towor. 


A  further  argument  has  been  made,  that  the  policy  places  too 
much  authority  in  the  hands  of  the  police  officer.  I  will  answer 
that  by  reminding  you  that  the  Judge  and  Court  officials  always 
have  the  last  SAY.  If  the  police  officer  has  exceeded  his  authority, 
the  matter  can  easily  be  adjusted  then. 

We  have  no  interest  or  concern  in  the  snarls  and  lampoons 
aimed  by  pettifoggers,  unscrupulous  politicians,  criminologists  or 
philosophers  of  no  experience  with  the  real  criminal  and  who  reach 
their  conclusions  by  theory  only. 

Some  little  opposition  was  also  felt  from  the  hired  help  of 
some  of  the  private  corporations,  who  could  not  use  this  depart¬ 
ment  to  their  private  interests  or  advantages,  who  themselves  neg¬ 
lected  to  properly  protect  their  private  rights,  with  a  view  of  pre¬ 
venting  violations. 

THE  RESULTS  OBTAINED,  SINCE  THE  APPLICATION 
OF  THE  POLICY,  IS  OUR  DEFENSE. 

Now,  let  us  carefully  consider  the  results  obtained  by  this 
policy.  For  the  year  1908,  our  records  show  a  reduction  of  20,333 
arrests,  or  66.8  per  cent  compared  with  1907  when  the  total  was 
30,418.  In  our  total  of  10,085  for  1908,  arrests  to  the  number  of 
just  one  thousand  were  made  for  felonies,  with  less  crime  and  less 
property  stolen,  as  against  938  for  the  year  1907.  Is  this  not  to  be 
considered  to  be  a  favorable  result  for  the  Golden  Rule  Policy? 
Would  it  have  been  better  to  go  on  increasing  the  number  of  ar¬ 
rests  of  minor  violators,  and  not  have  the  necessary  time  for  the 
apprehension  of  felons  or  procuring  of  necessary  evidence  to  con¬ 
vict  them?  Don’t  you  think  it  was  better  to  devote  more  time  to 
the  habitual  criminal,  and  the  more  serious  violators  against  the 
law,  as  we  have  done? 

Let  us  go  further  and  see  what  was  accomplished  after  the 
first  year,  and  after  the  members  of  the  department  (who  were  in 
sympathy  with  the  movement  and  gave  it  their  hearty  co-opera¬ 
tion)  had  become  accustomed  to  this  policy.  The  table  shows 
arrests  made  each  month. 


Under  the  Old  and 

Golden  Rule 

General  Custom. 

Policy. 

1906 

1907 

1908 

1909 

Total  arrests  January  . . 

. ...  2285 

2158 

911 

591 

tt  tt 

February  . 

. ...  2016 

2257 

829 

391 

u  a 

March  ..  .  . 

....  2430 

2711 

939 

.  483 

tt  tt 

April . 

....  2801 

2434 

907 

427 

*  a  n 

May  . 

....  2675 

2731 

888 

366 

tt  tt 

June  . 

....  2766 

2503 

882 

*n.<\ 

tt  tt 

ju'y  . 

....  2843 

2900 

1010 

a  a 

August  . . 

....  2749 

2898 

1015 

n  a 

September 

....  2919 

2510 

707 

jr.  ?.lo 

tt  tt 

October  .  . 

....  2770 

2351 

704 

HY 1 

a  a 

November 

....  2700 

2530 

619 

Mfi- 

a  tt 

December 

....  2782 

2435 

674 

Total 

arrests  . 

....31736 

5 

30418 

10085 

bod 

May,  1909,  shows  the  smallest  number  of  arrests  since  the 
policy  was  introduced.  This  is  the  least  number  of  persons  arrested 
in  any  month  during  the  past  twenty-five  years,  and  arrests  had 
been  increasing  each  year. 

In  this  total  of  366  arrests  for  the  month  of  May,  there 
is  included  57  arrests  for  felonies.  That  in  itself  is  conclusive 
evidence  that  our  policy  is  not  applied  to  criminals. 

In  summing  up  these  felonies,  we  have  simply  taken  the  bare 
arrests.  We  have  not  added  other  subsequent  charges  against 
the  same  culprit,  even  though  we  have  found  that  he  had  committed 
other  felonies  before  being  caught. 

During  the  month  of  May,  1907,  under  the  old  custom, 
there  were  1651  arrests  for  Intoxication.  In  May,  1908,  under 
the  Golden  Rule  Policy,  there  were  324  arrests  and  in  May,  1909, 
47  for  that  cause.  Can  you  imagine  anyone  being  injured 
by  this?  Don’t  the  figures  show  that  a  great  good  must  have  been 
done? 

Meanwhile  we  have  entirely  done  away  with  the  blackmailing, 
professional  bondsmen,  who  made  money  out  of  the  unfortunates 
placed  in  prison,  before  the  proper  inquiry  into  their  cases,  which 
is  general  under  the  old  plan. 

Under  this  system,  graft,  blackmail  and  extortion  is  impos¬ 
sible.  The  citizens  and  public  generally,  as  well  as  the  Courts  and 
public  press,  know  exactly  what  they  can  expect,  providing  they 
comply  with  the  rules  laid  down,  which  are  well  known. 

It  is  seldom  now  that  you  will  see  old  and  feeble  parents,  or 
weeping  wives  with  crying  babies  in  their  arms  and  other  children 
clinging  at  their  sides,  at  any  of  our  police  stations  or  Police  Court. 
This  degradation  and  humiliation  has  been  spared  our  people.  The)' 
have  been  saved  by  our  policemen  who  are  now  doing  real  work. 
And,  again,  you  will  not  find  so  many  people  interested  in  persons 
arrested,  perjuring  themselves  in  Police  Court  in  their  behalf,  and 
so  piling  crime  on  crime. 

Since  the  inception  of  the  Golden  Rule  or  Common  Sense 
Policy,  taking  as  a  basis  the  number  of  arrests  made  during  the 
year  1907  under  the  old  custom,  we  have  saved  on  an  average, 
about  1800  persons  per  month  from  Police  and  Police  Court  re¬ 
cords,  and  that  means  a  saving  of  “second  offenders.” 

Not  only  the  Police,  but  Police  Court  officials  also  who  are 
interested  in  their  work  and  not  playing  politics  or  catering  to  the 
criminal  class,  are  given  more  time  to  investigate  cases  of  a  more 
serious  nature;  and  arresting  officers  are  seldom  insulted  in  Police 
Court. 

As  to  money,  during  the  year  1908,  we  made  10,085  arrests 
which  cost  the  City  and  County,  in  witness  and  juror  fees  alone, 
approximately  $52,000.00.  Figuring  that  under  the  old  custom  of 
making  arrests,  we  would  have  at  least  made  as  many  arrests  as 
the  year  previous,  (30,418)  you  can  see  what  we  have  saved  the 
city  and  county  in  actual  money,  in  witness  and  juror  fees  alone, 
which  is  only  a  small  item  when  you  take  into  consideration  the 

6 


money  paid  out  by  persons  in  jeopardy,  to  professional  bondsmen, 
police  court  lawyers,  loss  of  time  from  work  of  the  principal  and 
witnesses,  and  hundreds  of  other  things  that  I  need  not  mention 
here. 

As  I  predicted,  the  shyster  police  court  lawyer,  and  the  tricky, 
pretending  politicians,  together  with  the  blackmailing  bondsmen, 
have  been  loud  in  their  protests  against  the  Golden  Rule  Policy, 
because  it  deprived  them  of  their  source  of  revenue  and  political 
following,  but  we  are  about  free  from  them  now. 

The  spirit  of  the  policy  is  to  make  every  member  of  the  Police 
force  the  kindly  adviser  of  the  public  generally,  and  to  give  every 
one  a  trial  and  a  chance  to  explain,  before  being  put  behind  prison 
bars.  We  only  put  them  in  prison  when  a  further  penalty  is  neces¬ 
sary.  We  believe  that  “A  little  prevention  is  better  than  any  cure.” 

To  say  the  Golden  Rule  Policy  has  proven  a  success  is  putting 
it  mildly.  Its  results  have  been  even  beyond  my  expectations. 
The  policy  has  not  only  decreased  the  number  of  arrests  but  has 
increased  the  number  of  arrests  of  real  criminals.  It  has  resulted 
in  driving  from  the  city  practically  all  those  whose  livelihood  de¬ 
pends  upon  swindling  and  robbing,  and  those  which  remain  are 
under  such  close  observation  that  it  is  almost  impossible  for  them 
to  operate  successfully.  Complaints  have  reduced  accordingly,  and 
there  has  been  less  real  crime  and  property  stolen  than  in  many 
previous  years. 

We  now  experience  “crimeless”  and  “arrestless”  days.  It  is 
the  result  of  our  work  in  trying  to  make  better  citizens  of  petty 
offenders.  It  is  the  ideal  condition  at  which  we  are  aiming,  and 
we  are  fast  reaching  the  goal.  We  have  encouraged  and  not  dis¬ 
couraged  men.  We  have  been  consistent ;  we  have  insisted  on  the 
police  exercising  all  the  powers  conferred  upon  them  by  law,  in¬ 
stead  of  allowing  a  political  Judge  to  make  votes  by  discharging 
prisoners  and  blackmailers  to  extort  money  irom  them.  All  that 
sort  of  business  has  about  ceased. 

We  have  discarded  artificiality.  We  have  acted  sensibly  and 
reasonably,  and  declined  to  take  advantage  of  the  predictions  of 
inexperienced  rich  and  poor.  We  do  our  own  thinking,  with  no 
effort  to  accord  with  the  belief  or  disbelief  of  anyone,  but  court 
everybody’s  criticism  or  suggestion.  We  have  placed  ourselves 
in  a  position  to  make  the  supposed  offenders,  their  relatives  and 
friends,  our  friends,  instead  of  our  enemies.  The  policy  will  put 
the  American  policeman  in  the  position  he  should  occupy.  He  is 
FIRST  AND  BEST  TUDGE,  although  we  have  found  that  “HE 
WHO  HOPES  TO  IMPROVE  THE  WORLD  MUST  FIRST 
LOOK  TO  BE  REPROVED.” 

I  might  say  that  this  Golden  Rule  or  Common  Sense  Policy 
has  been  carried  through  with  few  or  no  mistakes,  nor  has  a  single 
member  of  this  department  had  suit  brought  against  him,  or  been 
threatened  with  the  same  in  his  official  capacity,  a  record  here¬ 
tofore  unknown. 

A  year  ago  I  informed  you  that  I  believed  my  policy  would 

7 


3  0112  098429530 

succeed.  Now  I  assure  you  that  it  is  a  success,  and  that  many 
other  persons  believe  in  it.  We  cannot  create  an  earthly  paradise, 
for  there  will  be  violations  until  the  end  of  time,  even  as  there 
were  violations  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  existence  of  the  human 
race.  But  never  in  our  time  in  the  City  of  Cleveland,  will  we  go 
back  to  the  old  system  of  throwing  human  beings  carelessly  into 
jail,  as  has  been  the  custom  the  world  over. 

Police-Repression  has  accomplished  great  things  for  the  City 
of  Cleveland  and  its  population ;  and  all  without  any  new  legisla¬ 
tion;  nor  would  any  new  legislation  be  necessary  to  carry  this 
policy  into  general  effect  throughout  the  United  States. 

FRED  KOHLER, 

Chief  of  Police, 
Cleveland,  Ohio. 


